I donāt think that negates the validity of the critique.
AgreedāI didnāt mean to imply it was.
Okay, but I still donāt know what the view says about x-risk reduction (the example in my previous comment)?
By āthe viewā, do you mean the consequentialist person-affecting view you argued against, or one of the non-consequentialist person-affecting views I alluded to?
If the former, I have no idea.
If the latter, I guess it depends on the precise view. On the deontological view I find pretty plausible we have, roughly speaking, a duty to humanity, and thatād mean actions that reduce x-risk are good (and vice versa). (I think there are also other deontological reasons to reduce x-risk, but thatās the main one.) I guess I donāt see any way that changes depending on what the default is? Iāll stop here since Iām not sure this is even what you were asking about ā¦
Oh, to be clear, my response to RedStateBlueStateās comment was considering a new still-consequentialist view, that wouldnāt take trade 3. None of the arguments in this post are meant to apply to e.g. deontological views. Iāve clarified this in my original response.
AgreedāI didnāt mean to imply it was.
By āthe viewā, do you mean the consequentialist person-affecting view you argued against, or one of the non-consequentialist person-affecting views I alluded to?
If the former, I have no idea.
If the latter, I guess it depends on the precise view. On the deontological view I find pretty plausible we have, roughly speaking, a duty to humanity, and thatād mean actions that reduce x-risk are good (and vice versa). (I think there are also other deontological reasons to reduce x-risk, but thatās the main one.) I guess I donāt see any way that changes depending on what the default is? Iāll stop here since Iām not sure this is even what you were asking about ā¦
Oh, to be clear, my response to RedStateBlueStateās comment was considering a new still-consequentialist view, that wouldnāt take trade 3. None of the arguments in this post are meant to apply to e.g. deontological views. Iāve clarified this in my original response.